Posts tagged ‘Barack Obama’

December 5, 2012

Every Click on a YouTube Video Obama gets a Dime.

Obama & Google's Unholy Alliance.

Cronyism at its finest.

Editors Note: The below article is why I built PopModal Videos. It is the Conservative/Libertarian Alternative to YouTube. It is time to start paying attention to your actions and their consequences. Hypocrisy is unbecoming.

Already a winner on the business front for his support and guidance to President Obama and his reelection campaign, there is growing speculation that Google Chairman Eric Schmidt is in line for an even bigger payoff: secretary of either Treasury or Commerce or a new “secretary of business” slot.

Cabinet shakeup watchers have focused on Schmidt and his Yoda status in the Obama reelection campaign, Google’s massive $1.9 million to Democrats in the election, and the administration’s efforts to quiet a potential Federal Trade Commission investigation of Google as key signs that the president wants Schmidt in the cabinet.

“Nobody’s better positioned for a Cabinet job, if he wants one,” said a Democratic strategist.

Since Obama ran for national office, Google has been there with money and advice. Way back in 2007, Obama visited Google HQ and said, “What we shared is a belief in changing the world from the bottom up, not from the top down.”

Ever since, it’s been a match made in heaven.

Schmidt stood with Obama during his first 2008 post-election press conference.

When Obama started to push for a new round of stimulus spending in 2011, Schmidt was a cheerleader. Google’s political action committee delivered $1.6 million to Democrats in 2008 and over $700,000 to Obama in the last election.

At a recent Politico breakfast, Obama Campaign Manager Jim Messina mentioned only Schmidt as his go-to guy. Schmidt was at Obama campaign headquarters on Election Day when Obama visited.

It’s potentially good for Google too: As the FTC looks to probe Google, Obama nominated for a Republican vacancy a GOP professor with a record of fighting anti-trust enforcement and whose work was backed by groups supported by Google. On Monday, the nominee, Joshua Wright, said he would recuse himself from Google cases.

Now as speculation grows of Schmidt taking a cabinet post, critics are drawing attention to the closeness of the administration-Google relationship. “Support in 2008, plus support in 2012, plus personal counsel by Schmidt to Messina in 2012, may now equal a plum cabinet post,” said one.

via Treasury Secretary Google? | WashingtonExaminer.com.

Advertisements
November 29, 2012

Susan Rice’s Enrichment Program

The portfolio of embattled United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice includes investments of hundreds of thousands of dollars in several energy companies known for doing business with Iran, according to financial disclosure forms.

Rice, a possible nominee to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she steps down, has come under criticism for promulgating erroneous information about the September 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans.

Rice has the highest net worth of executive branch members, with a fortune estimated between $24 to $44 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. A Free Beacon analysis of Rice’s portfolio shows thousands of dollars invested in at least three separate companies cited by lawmakers on Capitol Hill for doing business in Iran’s oil and gas sector.

The revelation of these investments could pose a problem for Rice if she is tapped by President Barack Obama to replace Clinton. Among the responsibilities of the next secretary of state will be a showdown with Iran over its nuclear enrichment program.

“That Susan Rice invested in companies doing business in Iran shows either the Obama administration’s lack of seriousness regarding Iran or Rice’s own immorality,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser on Iran and Iraq. “Either way, her actions undercut her ability to demand our allies unity on Iran.”

The companies in question appear to have conducted business with Tehran well after Western governments began to urge divestment from the rogue nation, which has continued to enrich uranium near levels needed to build a nuclear bomb.

Financial disclosures reveal that Rice has had $50,001-$100,000 in Royal Dutch Shell, a longtime purchaser of Iranian crude oil.

Royal Dutch Shell currently owes Iran nearly $1 billion in back payments for crude oil that it purchased before Western economic sanctions crippled Tehran’s ability to process oil payments, Reuters reported.

“A debt of that size would equate to roughly four large tanker loads of Iranian crude or about 8 million barrels,” according to the report.

Rice has additional investments in Norsk Hydro ASA, a Norwegian aluminum firm, and BHP Billiton PLC, an Australian-based natural resources company, financial disclosure show.

Norway’s Norsk Hydro was awarded in 2006 a $107 million exploration and development contract for Iran’s Khorramabad oil block, according to the Wall Street Journal. Rice’s portfolio includes an investment of up to $15,000 in the company.

Norsk acknowledged at the time that it was working in Iran against the wishes of the U.S. government.

America is “not happy that we’re there,” Norsk Hydro spokeswoman Kama Holte Strand told the Journal at the time. Holte admitted that the company was working with Tehran because it is “profitable.”

Rice has up to $50,000 invested with another Iranian partner, BHP Billiton, which was probed by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 for its dealings with Cuba and Iran, according to reports.

The company, which had leased office space in

, admitted to making more than $360 million from the Iranians, according to The Australian.

BHP Billiton sought to build a natural gas pipeline between 2002 and 2005 in conjunction with the National Iranian Oil Company, according the report. The company’s subsidiaries additionally “sold alumina, coking coal, manganese, and copper to state-owned Iranian companies.”

The House of Representatives passed a bill in 2007 that took aim at these companies and other that had done business with Iran. The bill enabled state and local governments to divest from these companies due to their dealings with Iran.

Then-senator Obama proposed and supported a similar bill at the time.

It is unclear how White House press secretary Jay Carney will respond to the latest revelations about Rice. Previous questions from the media about Rice’s investment in the company building the controversial Keystone XL pipeline were dismissed by Carney as information from “Republican opposition researchers.”

This entry was posted in Middle East, Obama Administration and tagged BHP Billiton, investments, Iran, Norsk Hydro ASA, oil, Royal Dutch Shell, Susan Rice. Bookmark the permalink.

via Susan Rice’s Enrichment Program | Washington Free Beacon.

September 9, 2012

Obama’s Dreams – Thomas Sowell

by Thomas Sowell

After reading Barack Obama’s book “Dreams from My Father,” it became painfully clear that he has not been searching for the truth, because he assumed from an early age that he had already found the truth — and now it was just a question of filling in the details and deciding how to change things.

Obama did not simply happen to encounter a lot of people on the far left fringe during his life. As he spells out in his book, he actively sought out such people. There is no hint of the slightest curiosity on his part about other visions of the world that might be weighed against the vision he had seized upon.

As Professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School has pointed out, Obama made no effort to take part in the marketplace of ideas with other faculty members when he was teaching a law course there. What would be the point, if he already knew the truth and knew that they were wrong?

This would be a remarkable position to take, even for a learned scholar who had already spent decades canvassing a vast amount of information and views on many subjects. But Obama was already doctrinaire at a very early age — and ill-informed or misinformed on both history and economics.

His statement in “Dreams from My Father” about how white men went to Africa to “drag away the conquered in chains” betrays his ignorance of African history.

The era of the Atlantic slave trade and the era of European conquests across the continent of Africa were different eras. During the era of the Atlantic slave trade, most of Africa was ruled by Africans, who sold some of their slaves to white men.

European conquests in Africa had to wait until Europeans found some way to survive lethal African diseases, to which they lacked resistance. Only after medical science learned to deal with these diseases could the era of European conquests spread across sub-Saharan Africa. But the Atlantic slave trade was over by then.

There was no reason why Barack Obama had to know this. But there was also no reason for him to be shooting off his mouth without knowing what he was talking about.

Similarly with Obama’s characterization of the Nile as “the world’s greatest river.” The Nile is less than 10 percent longer than the Amazon, but the Amazon delivers more than 50 times as much water into the Atlantic as the Nile delivers into the Mediterranean. The Nile could not accommodate the largest ships, even back in Roman times, much less the aircraft carriers of today that can sail up the Hudson River and dock in midtown Manhattan.

When Obama wrote that many people “had been enslaved only because of the color of their skin,” he was repeating a common piece of gross misinformation. For thousands of years, people enslaved other people of the same race as themselves, whether in Europe, Asia, Africa or the Western Hemisphere.

Europeans enslaved other Europeans for centuries before the first African was brought in bondage to the Western Hemisphere. The very word “slave” is derived from the name of a European people once widely held in bondage, the Slavs.

As for economics, Obama thought that Indonesians would be worse off after Europeans came in, used up their natural resources and then left them too poor to continue the modern way of life to which they had become accustomed, or to resume their previous way of life, after their previous skills had atrophied.

This fear of European “exploitation” prevailed widely in the Third World in the middle of the 20th century. But, by the late 20th century, the falseness of that view had been demonstrated so plainly and so often, in countries around the world, that even socialist and communist governments began opening their economies to foreign investments. This often led to rising economic growth rates that lifted millions of people out of poverty.

Barack Obama is one of those people who are often wrong but never in doubt. When he burst upon the national political scene as a presidential candidate in 2008, even some conservatives were impressed by his confidence.

But confident ignorance is one of the most dangerous qualities in a leader of a nation. If he has the rhetorical skills to inspire the same confidence in himself by others, then you have the ingredients for national disaster.

via Obama’s Dreams – Thomas Sowell – [page].

July 28, 2012

Aurora, Colorado Knee-Jerks and other Jerks on the Left

Burt Prelutsky
humor columnist

UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS, I would not address the tragic events that took place in Aurora, Colorado. For one thing, it was the insane act of a single psychotic, as opposed to the sort of stuff I generally deal with, such as Obama’s destructive policies and the loony legislation enacted by the left-wing pinheads in Congress.

I am only making an exception in the case of James Holmes because of what it tells us about liberals. Understand, I’m not laying his massacre at the feet of leftists. I leave that sort of thing to the media. You know, the folks who announced that Jared Lee Loughner was a conservative as soon as they heard that he had gone on a murderous rampage in Tucson, Arizona, that left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords wounded and several people dead. In similar fashion, we all got to hear that James Holmes was a member of the Tea Party even before the smoke had cleared.

What the events at the Aurora movie complex tell us about liberals is that, taking the advice of Rahm Emanuel to heart, they are loath to let a crisis go to waste. As sure as shooting, within hours of the tragedy, they were out in force complaining about that darn Second Amendment. The fact that if someone in the theater had been carrying a concealed weapon, Holmes might have been stopped almost before he got started fails to register on those who hate guns to such a degree that they can never acknowledge that they can ever be used for good.

But, then, they also refused to concede the irony that it took a police officer to end Major Nidal Hassan’s bloody rampage at Fort Hood because the powers-that-be decided that a military base, of all places, was to be a gun-free environment.

When I hear liberals blame guns for what Holmes did, I realize they don’t appreciate how much worse the carnage could have been. If, instead of entering the theater with his semi-automatic weapon, he had set off the bombs with which he had booby-trapped his apartment, God only knows how many more people would have been killed and maimed.

Liberals are always eager to ban guns, but even after the Oklahoma City bombing, you didn’t hear them talk about banning fertilizer. That’s probably just as well because sane people would have then been forced to point out that manure doesn’t kill people; people kill people.

One of the creepy things about liberals is that they only wish to discuss actions and inevitable consequences when the actions can be traced to conservatives. You never hear them reprimand parole boards, which are nearly always comprised of social workers, psychologists and other college degreed morons, when one of the felons they release murders or rapes another victim.

You never hear liberals blaming people like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama, for bringing on the financial meltdown by insisting that home loans be given to people who couldn’t come up with a down payment, all because they knew that the votes of those new homeowners could be so easily bought and paid for with the tax dollars of the solvent.

Have you ever heard a liberal lay the blame for Islamic terrorism at the feet of Jimmy Carter, the man who pulled the carpet out from under the Shah of Iran, thus inviting the Ayatollah Khomeini and his mullahs to embark on their mission of worldwide domination?

Speaking of lunatics such as Jared Loughner and James Holmes, it’s been liberal state legislators who have cut funding for insane asylums and the ACLU who have fought the commitment of psychotics. As a result, these days, there is no way to force the mentally deranged to take their medications and no way to get them off the streets once they decide to forego their meds until the day the voices in their heads send them off on a killing spree.

Also, you may have noticed that all the knuckleheads on the Left need to do is place “phobic” at the end of words in order to cow their opponents into silence. If you don’t think that same-sex marriages are a great idea, you’re homophobic. If you don’t believe that our country owes its creation to Muslims, you’re Islamophobic. I have reached the point where I am phobiaphobic. All I need is for someone to try to win a debate by introducing “phobic” into the discussion and I go berserk.

Moreover, nobody is supposed to be judgmental, lest they be accused of bigotry. So the fact that one of the major reasons that the black community is so dangerous and so dysfunctional is because more than seven out of every 10 black babies is born to an unwed mother is supposed to be ignored in the name of political correctness. In one of Leona Salazar’s columns, I read that the most appropriate name for those unfortunate babies is “souvenirs.” I couldn’t have said it any better, or I would have.

In conclusion, I would say that when you realize there are about 315 million people now living in the United States, and that thousands of them didn’t think twice about standing in line in order to see a comic book movie at midnight, and that tens of millions more will, in spite of all the rotten things this administration has done over the past three years, vote for Barack Obama this November, it’s rather surprising that such tragic events as took place in Columbine, Tucson and Aurora, are as rare as they are.

via BurtPrelutsky.com.

May 25, 2012

Obama Foreign Policy our enemies can count on.

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Charles Krauthammer on Obama’s foreign policy failures and
how he has politicized them at the expense of U.S. security.

Medvede, Obama, Putin, Ahmadinejad – Global Government

Obama Foreign Policy: Anyone out there who helps us on the war on terror will be sacrificed for political purposes.

Obama Foreign Policy: Any CIA undercover agent will be sacrificed for political purposes.

Obama Foreign Policy: If a freedom movement rises up against an oppressive tyrannical government, Obama will say nothing in order to score points with the regim with whom he is negotiating.

Obama Foreign Policy: Reset relationships with archenemies and give them everything they want at the expense of burgeoning constitutional governments.

Obama Foreign Policy: Get ride of Billionaire Dictators that can interfere with his global domination plans. i.e. Mubarak, Gaddafi, Osama & Ben Ali of Tunisia.

April 14, 2012

What else is Obama planning if he wins reelection? One of the most stupid proposals ever made by a president.

Obama Visits the Veterans Administration

“Look, it’s an all volunteer force,” Obama might have complained when confronted with how insensitive his proposal to charge veteran’s insurance companies for wounds received in battle. He was probably thinking, “Nobody made these guys go to war. They had to have known and accepted the risks. Now they whine about bearing the costs of their choice? It doesn’t compute. I thought these were people who were proud to sacrifice for their country, I wasn’t asking for blood, just money. With the country facing the worst financial crisis in its history, I’d have thought that the patriotic thing to do would be to try to help reduce the nation’s deficit. I guess I underestimated the selfishness of some of my fellow Americans.”

Bad press, including major mockery of the play by comedian Jon Stewart, led to President Obama abandoning his proposal to require veterans carry private health insurance to cover the estimated $540 billion annual cost to the federal government of treatment for injuries to military personnel received during their tours on active duty. The President admitted that he was puzzled by the magnitude of the opposition to his proposal.

Click here for more info on the insane proposal to make our soldiers pay for their war wounds.

Forget scoops and fact check. They are own by lefties and spin the facts like pros.

April 4, 2012

Texas vs. California – Chuck DeVore

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Chuck DeVore

Chuck DeVore Senior Visiting Scholar for Fiscal Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

One in five Americans calls California or Texas home. The two most populous states have a lot in common: a long coast, a sunny climate, a diverse population, plenty of oil in the ground, and Mexico to the south. Where they diverge is in their governance.

For six years ending in 2010, I represented almost 500,000 people in California’s legislature. I was vice chairman of the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation and served on the Budget Committee. I was even a lieutenant colonel in the state’s National Guard. Before serving in Sacramento, I worked as an executive in California’s aerospace industry.

I moved to Texas late last year, joining the 2 million Californians who have packed up for greener pastures in the past ten years, with Texas the most common destination.

In his State-of-the-State address this January, California governor Jerry Brown said, “Contrary to those declinists who sing of Texas and bemoan our woes, California is still the land of dreams. . . . It’s the place where Apple . . . and countless other creative companies all began.”

Fast forward to March: Apple announced it was building a $304 million campus in Austin with plans to hire 3,600 people to staff it, more than doubling its Texas workforce.

California may be dreaming, but Texas is working.

California’s elected officials are particularly adept at dreaming up ways to spend other people’s money. While the state struggles with interminable deficits caused by years of reckless spending, the argument in Sacramento isn’t over how to reduce government; rather, it’s over how much to raise taxes and on whom. Governor Brown is pushing for a tax increase of $6.9 billion per year, to appear on this November’s ballot. California’s powerful government-employee unions and Molly Munger, a wealthy civil-rights attorney (wealthy by dint of being the daughter of Warren Buffett’s business partner) are offering two competing tax-hike plans. The silver lining may be that having three tax hikes on the ballot will turn voters off all of them.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in Texas are grappling with a fiscal question of an entirely different sort: whether or not to spend some of the $6 billion set aside in the state’s rainy-day fund.

California’s government-employee unions routinely spend tens of millions of dollars at election time to maintain their hold on power. In Texas, the government unions are weak and don’t have collective bargaining, leaving trial attorneys as the main source of funding for Lone Star Democrats.

California’s habit of raising taxes to fund a burgeoning regulatory state isn’t without impact on its economy. Californians fork over about 10.6 percent of their income to state and local governments, above the U.S. average of 9.8 percent. Texans pay 7.9 percent. This affects the bottom line of both consumers and businesses.

With that money, Californians pay for more government. The number of non-education bureaucrats in California is close to the national average, at 252 per 10,000 people. Texas gets by with a bureaucracy 22 percent smaller: 196 per 10,000.

Of course, having more government employees means making more government rules. According to a 2009 study commissioned by the California legislature, state regulations cost almost $500 billion per year, or five times the state’s general-fund budget. These regulations ding the average small business for some $134,122 a year in compliance and opportunity costs.

While California has more bureaucrats, Texas has 17 percent more teachers, with 295 education employees per 10,000 people, compared to California’s 252.

The two states’ educational outcomes reflect this disparity. If we compare national test scores in math, science, and reading for the fourth and eighth grades among four basic ethnic and racial categories — all students, whites, Hispanics, and African-Americans — Texas beats California in every category, and by a substantial margin. In fact, Texas schools perform consistently above the national average across categories of age, race, and subject matter, while California schools perform well below the national average.

Apologists for the Golden State frequently point to Texas’s flourishing oil and gas industry as the reason for its success. Texas does lead the nation in proven oil reserves, but California ranks third. The real difference isn’t in geology but in public policy: Californians have decided to make it difficult to extract the oil under their feet.

Further, contrary to popular opinion, California’s refineries routinely produce a greater value of product than do refineries in Texas, mainly because the special gasoline blends that California requires are more costly.

Another advantage that Texas enjoys over California is in its civil-justice system. In 2002, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ranked Texas’s legal system 46th in the nation, just behind California’s, which was 45th. Texas went to work improving its lawsuit environment, enacting major medical-malpractice reforms in 2003. Texas’s ranking consequently jumped ten places in eight years, while California’s dropped to 46th. In the last legislative session, Texas lawmakers passed a landmark loser-pays provision, which promises to further curtail frivolous lawsuits.

While California seeks more ways to tax success, it excels at subsidizing poverty. The percentage of households receiving public assistance in California was 3.7 percent in 2009, double Texas’s rate of 1.8 percent. Almost one-third of all Americans on welfare reside in California.

With this in mind, it makes perfect sense that only 18 percent of the Democrats who control both houses of California’s full-time legislature worked in business or medicine before being elected. The remainder drew paychecks from government, worked as community organizers, or were attorneys.

In Texas, with its part-time legislature, 75 percent of the Republicans who control both houses earn a living in business, farming, or medicine, with 19 percent being attorneys in private practice. Texas Democrats are more than twice as likely as their California counterparts to claim private-sector experience outside the field of law.

That Texas’s legislature is run by makers and California’s by takers is glaringly obvious from the two states’ respective balance sheets.

— Chuck DeVore served in the California State Assembly from 2004 to 2010 and was a Republican candidate for the United States Senate in 2010. He is currently a visiting senior fellow in fiscal policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

via Texas vs. California – Chuck DeVore – National Review Online.

March 30, 2012

Liberal, Just Another Word For Stupid

by BurtPrelutsky

Burt Prelutsky
humor columnist

I CAN’T TELL YOU how many times I’ve asked myself how it is that so many of my fellow Americans can actually go out and vote for people as ignorant as Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer and Hank Johnson. Rep. Johnson, in case he’s slipped your mind, is the Democrat representing Georgia’s 4th congressional district, whose claim to fame is that during a House Armed Services Committee hearing, he asked Admiral Robert Willard if he shared the congressman’s concern that adding 8,000 servicemen and their families to the 175,000 civilians on the island could cause Guam to tip over and capsize.

The truth is, even if you ignore their politics, it would be hard to imagine any group of people in which this trio would not stand out by reason of their ignorance.

But just as often, I’ve found myself wondering why Fox keeps offering up the likes of Juan Williams, Leslie Marshall, Geraldo Rivera, Alan Colmes, Marc Lamont Hill and Bob Beckel. I sit at home listening to these donkeys braying the same predictable talking points to each and every question, and I find myself dismissing Fox’s claims to being fair and balanced. If that’s their intention, I say to myself, why is it they never invite some intelligent people on to present the liberal side of issues?

Then it struck me. There is no intelligent argument that can be made for liberalism. All any of them can do is parrot the same insipid sound bites dreamed up by the likes of Barack Obama, James Carville, David Axelrod, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and regurgitated ad nauseam by Jay Carney.

There is a very good reason why there’s nobody on the Left who is comparable to Charles Krauthammer, Mark Levin, Thomas Sowell, Brit Hume, Ann Coulter, Dennis Prager, Walter Williams, Mark Steyn, Steve Hayes, Bernie Goldberg, Harry Stein, Michael Medved, Mark Alexander, Bret Baier, Michelle Malkin and Lou Dobbs. The reason is that liberals never think for themselves. Aside from plotting how to game the system in order to steal elections, none of them ever has an original thought. Even questioning Barack Obama is regarded as an act of heresy.

What’s more, I can prove it. Every liberal in public life has called for abolishing the Second Amendment. Now why is that? I happen to know a number of liberals who own guns. What’s more, rich liberals who don’t own guns have security people on their payroll who carry them. Even anti-gun advocate Sen. Dianne Feinstein was once found to be packing a heater in her purse, and yet, with a single voice, liberals squeal for the abolition of all firearms. The only reason for all this hypocrisy is because some influential liberal along the way decided it was a divisive issue which could be used as a wedge between them and the rest of us.

How else could a Chicago punk at a San Francisco fundraiser be so certain that he would derive laughter, applause and huge campaign donations, from a bunch of limp-wristed fat cats by demeaning his betters as “those who cling to their guns and their religion”? For good measure, he was well-guarded at the event by a squad of Secret Service agents armed to the teeth.

If you still question my statement that liberalism is synonymous with stupidity, imagine a TV network whose intellectual heavyweights are Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and Al Sharpton, or a now defunct radio network that headlined Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo, whose combined IQ would have to climb a stepladder and then stand on its tippy toes in order to reach triple digits.

The truth of the matter is that if liberals were as smart as they claim, they’d be conservatives.

via BurtPrelutsky.com.

February 21, 2012

Obama: The Things We Don’t Know About Him

Who is Barack Hussein Obama?

Obama has spent nearly $2 million to cover up records from his past. We have no birth certificate, no grades from colleges and universities attended, no papers written, no speeches given. What is he trying so hard to cover up? Did his papers indicate his true colors? Was he aligned with Black Panther-like radicals? Would his papers reveal anti-Americanism or a radicalism that would categorize him more in line with a die-hard communist rather than simply a socialist? Is he hiding these things because he is an extremely private person and doesn’t care for the limelight (I can’t even keep a straight face while writing those words), or does Barack Obama have a background that must be hidden from the American people in order to fulfill the necessary deception to get him elected and probably re-elected?

Obama Still Has A Lot Of Explaining To Do

Why hasn’t anyone from Besuki or St. Francis of Assisi School stepped forward to tell tales of their relationship with Barry Soetoro? Barack attended Punahou School, a college preparatory school in 1971.  No one seems to have remembered him.  Obama openly admits that he used tobacco, alcohol, and cocaine to “push questions of who I was out of my mind” (Boston  Globe, Nov.  2007.)  If Obama took drugs to forget who he was, did all of his friends take drugs to forget who he was also?  No one, NO ONE, remembers him.

We know so much about our presidents. We collect facts and trivia about them. We are fascinated when we find common facts about extraordinary men.  We know that Abraham Lincoln was 6’4”. We know that James Madison was only 5’4”. We know that George Washington wore dentures made of animal teeth.  We know that a 332 pound Howard Taft got stuck in the White House bath tub the first time he used it.  Very few people even know the 21st president named Chester A. Arthur.  He once declared, “I may be President of the United States, but my private life is my own d_____  business.”  This seems to be the ongoing motto of Barack Obama. We know so little about him that it ceases to be simply unusual; it borders on being just plain weird.

If you look hard enough, you will find a picture of Michelle and Barack’s wedding. But you won’t find any male friends accompanying the groom. His best man was Malik Obama, a half-brother from Kenya.  Why are there no pictures or recollections of male buddies at his wedding?  Did he have any friends?

via Obama: The Things We Don’t Know About Him | Western Journalism.com.

February 16, 2012

Voter Fraud Could Decide Next Election

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Reports are coming in that the voter rolls have been faked. We knew that the voter rolls were padded in places like Chicago, but now we’re learning that the fraud is more widespread than we ever could have imagined. The question is, can we do anything to stop it?

In the days of the Soviet Union, Communist leaders would generally get 95 percent of the vote, and nearly every eligible voter voted.

A new report by Pew Center on the States estimates that among 24 million voter registrations, about one out of every eight are either no longer valid or are inaccurate. Of the invalid or inaccurate registrations, 1.8 million belong to deceased individuals and 2.75 million belong to people who are registered to vote in more than one state.

You can see how these fraudulent voter numbers can be used to tip an election. Most of elections these days are close to even. We are a 51 to 49 percent nation. It doesn’t take much fraud to throw enough votes to a favorite-son candidate. The Kennedy-Nixon presidential election in 1960 was always thought to have been won by Kennedy due to voter fraud:

Many Republicans (including Nixon and Eisenhower) believed that Kennedy had benefited from vote fraud, especially in Texas, where Kennedy’s running mate Lyndon B. Johnson was Senator, and Illinois, home of Mayor Richard Daley’s powerful Chicago political machine. These two states are important because if Nixon had carried both, he would have won the election in the Electoral College.

It was serious enough that many Nixon supporters urged him to contest the race.

You know that Liberals have been using these bogus rolls to pad their numbers. 2012 may be the first national election that there are more votes than actual voters.

There’s another element to voter numbers that’s troubling and easily fixed. The Pew study “also found that 51 million U.S. citizens are eligible to vote, but have not registered. This represents 24 percent of the voting eligible population.”

Tens of millions of Americans who are eligible to vote don’t vote. Of course, some of these non-voters we don’t want to vote, but I suspect that there are big numbers of conservative, anti-big-government Americans who have given up on the political process. They don’t see much of a difference between Democrats and Republicans. The reason that we have a one-party “Republicrat” political system may be due to voter indifference. If you are one of them, now is the time to reengage. Too much is at stake. Your non-vote only means greater voting strength for the opposition. Remember, the presidential race is not the only one being run. Congress can stopped the President if it has the will and the guts.

via Voter Fraud Could Decide Next Election.

%d bloggers like this: